94. The representative of Switzerland said that, as had been pointed out by other delegations, the setting up and use of a system of notification and registration of geographical indications should not involve excessive costs or burdens. This was a concern that all delegations should bear in mind when discussing the characteristics of the system. Regarding costs, she said that they should always be examined in relation to the benefits that were expected. From that perspective, it seemed that a register with legal effects, e.g., with a presumption, would make it possible to considerably reduce the cost linked with the protection of GIs for the producer of products bearing such GIs. Producers would not feel compelled to seek protection of their GIs by way of prevention in each Member. Moreover, in case of litigation, the register would prove to be a tool for these producers which would facilitate the protection of their GIs by reversing the burden of proof. Members' authorities would also benefit from the system because they would also have a reference tool to determine which GIs they would have to protect. If these GIs had not been challenged, it would seem that notification at the multilateral level would make it possible to obtain those advantages, provided a legal effect was attached to registration. Such an effect could be particularly useful for producers in developing countries, which might not have the means to take preventive action in all the markets where they would intend to market their products. The fact of simply establishing a database without legal effect did not make it possible to make such "savings" because the entry into this database would just be one source of information among many other sources. Regarding the cost-benefit aspect, the various proposals put forward to date provided that Members wishing to benefit from the effects of the system must in all cases notify their GIs, which would imply a certain amount of work for them. A simple database which was without legal effect and which was only a source of information would benefit those producers very little since there was not even a reversal of the burden of proof. In contrast, with a register which created a presumption of validity, the burden of proof would no longer fall on the legitimate producers but on the other party, and that would facilitate the protection of GIs. The notification, examination and opposition phases should therefore be considered as an investment for the usefulness and viability of the system; the costs involved would be off-set by the benefit derived from a real facilitated protection. Concerning comments made on the role which could be played by the administrating body, she recalled that her delegation had indicated at the last meeting that that body should carry out a brief examination to determine whether the notification and opposition fulfilled the formal requirements. This idea should be further examined because the formal examination could alleviate the work of Members in the examination phase. She confirmed that in her delegations' view, it would not be up to the administrating body to say whether or not a notified name was a GI.
95. Referring to a statement made by her delegation at the last meeting (TN/IP/M/3, paragraph 70), she added that, on the question of who would specifically bear the financial costs of the system, one solution would be to charge fees on the basis of the number of notifications made. That was the solution retained in the Lisbon Agreement (TN/IP/W/4, page 7). It would be logical that it should be the Members using the system and benefiting from its advantages who should bear the costs. Members would be free to determine at the national level who should actually contribute to the payment of the fees, i.e., governments or the producers. That would depend on their systems of protection of GIs. In order to ensure as broad as possible a participation in the system, it might be useful to find solutions to ensure that these fees did not prevent certain Members from proceeding to the notification of their GIs. One could, for example, imagine a financing in favour of these Members through technical cooperation activities or offering that certain notifications and registrations be free of charge.
